Atheist Manifesto

[5stringJeff]

<br>According to the Bible, Exodus 21:7, you may sell your daughter into slavery.
<br>According to the Bible, Lev. 25:44, you may own slaves.
<br>According to the Bible, Exodus 35:2, people who work on Sundays should be put to death.
<br>According to the Bible, Lev.24:10-16, the punishment for blaspheme is stoning.
<br>According to the Bible, Lev. 20:14, the punishment for sleeping with in-laws is burning to death.
<p>
What criteria do you use, I wonder, to decide which Biblical pronouncements you will follow and which you will not?

A common question, and while I don't know that I could explain it very well, this essay should answer your question.

 

[5stringJeff]

This is an interesting point, one that Harris deals with in his essay. How would you respond to this statement?

"Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering. But how else can we understand the claim that God is both omniscient and omnipotent? There is no other way, and it is time for sane human beings to own up to this. This is the age-old problem of theodicy, of course, and we should consider it solved. If God exists, either he can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities or he does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil. Pious readers will now execute the following pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality. But, of course, human standards of morality are precisely what the faithful use to establish God’s goodness in the first place. And any God who could concern himself with something as trivial as gay marriage, or the name by which he is addressed in prayer, is not as inscrutable as all that. If he exists, the God of Abraham is not merely unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man."

I believe Mr. Harris has it wrong. Here is his argument, if I'm reading it right:

1. If God exists, He must be both omnipotent and omniscient. (This is the Biblical/Christian claim.)
2. If God was omnipotent (able to act in order to stop evil acts) and omniscient (knowing when evil acts would occur), then God would be able to stop all evil from occurring/existing.
3. Evil does exist/occur.
4. Therefore, God must not exist.

The Christian's argument goes something like this:

1. If God is omnipotent, He is able to stop all evil from occurring/existing.
2. If God is omniscient, He knows how to stop all evil from occuring/existing.
3. Evil exists/occurs.
4. Therefore, God will eventually (at some point in the future) stop all evil from occurring/existing. In the Bible, God's return, mankind's judgment, the establishment of God's kingdom, etc. are all highlighted as the end state of creation. Jesus promised to return to earth in the Gospels, Paul wrote to various Christian communities about Christ's return, and of course, John's Revelation provides a vision of the last days.

So the existence of evil is not an issue, because we see that God is both willing to destroy evil and able to destroy evil. Yet, He is holding off, for an undisclosed period of time. Why? 2 Peter 3:9 says, "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." So God wants humans to repent and receive salvation, and therefore He is waiting to destroy evil (in the form of sin, Satan, and death).

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So the existence of evil is not an issue, because we see that God is both willing to destroy evil and able to destroy evil. Yet, He is holding off, for an undisclosed period of time. Why?

Seems to me it's like a test to separate the wheat from the chaff. The chaff is blown away in the wind of evil. Please no fart jokes.

 

[Matrixx8]

If you are going to cite the Bible atleast dont do so in ignorance. Have you ever bothered reading it? Have you even bothered reading those verses because I can guarentee without even looking at it that Exodus 35:2 doesnt mention Sundays at all.

I don't have any reference at hand, but the Hebrew word has probably been translated into English as sabbath

In English, the word sabbath has several meanings:

Originally denoting Saturday, the seventh day of the week, or, more precisely, the time period from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, the term 'sabbath' can now mean one of several things, depending on the context and the speaker:

• Saturday, as originally, in reference to Jewish or historical observance;
• Saturday, as above, as a day of observance for some Christian groups;
• Sunday, as the day of observance for Roman Catholics and other Christian groups;
• Saturday and Sunday as a day of relaxing;
• Any day or time period for relaxing and enjoying God;[2]

 

[Said1]

Did they have Saturday and Sunday back in the day?

 

[Hobbit]

I don't have any reference at hand, but the Hebrew word has probably been translated into English as sabbath

In English, the word sabbath has several meanings:

Originally denoting Saturday, the seventh day of the week, or, more precisely, the time period from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, the term 'sabbath' can now mean one of several things, depending on the context and the speaker:

• Saturday, as originally, in reference to Jewish or historical observance;
• Saturday, as above, as a day of observance for some Christian groups;
• Sunday, as the day of observance for Roman Catholics and other Christian groups;
• Saturday and Sunday as a day of relaxing;
• Any day or time period for relaxing and enjoying God;[2]

While many Christians take the Sabbath rules quite seriously, it is my opinion that, like the kosher laws, were meant solely for the Jews and need not necessarily be heeded by the Gentiles. I do, however, recognize the need for a day of rest and I always take a day during the week on which I do no chores and spend a longer than typical time in devotion.

Back to a bit of the original topic, I remember seeing the post asking how a caring, loving, omnipotent, omniscient God could allow evil to thrive. I took a long time of thought and reflection, along with reading some of Lee Strobel, and I have formed at least a partial answer. A full answer would (or at least should) win me a Nobel Prize.

First is the kind of evil perpetrated by man. This goes back to the idea of free will. Just as the existence of light begets the possibility of shadow, thus the existence of love must beget the possibility of hate. Without the ability to not love, love cannot exist. I could make a computer program that praises my every action in an afternoon, but that program cannot love me, because it has not been given the state of awareness needed to make the choice to love or not to love. All it does is spout affection, which is only mere words. The kind of evil that brought down the World Trade Center is a direct product of the fact that we are capable of true love.

The second part of the equation is the suffering inflicted by nature. Drought, storm, famine, earthquakes, and other products of nature ravage mankind, but why does God allow this. There are many theories, but the best answer I have found thus far deals with the supremeness of God. If God is an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful God, then he knows things we don't. A good analogy is a story known as the hunter and the bear. God knows far more above what we know than what a hunter would know above a bear. Let's say for a second, then, that a hunter finds a bear in a trap. The hunter takes pity on the bear and decides to free him. The bear is in pain and is uneasy about the hunter helping him, so the hunter must tranquilize the bear. Now the bear is truly convinced he's under attack and will believe it even further if he is still concious when the hunter pushes the bear's leg further into the trap to release the catch. Yeah, what God seems to allow or not allow doesn't always make sense to us and may seem cruel, but God knows a lot more than we do, and so there may be good that emerges that we never see.

The existence of evil does not disprove God. In fact, the idea that we label it as evil proves a divine standard by which good and evil are judged.

 

[Bullypulpit]

so you believe murder is wrong? Where does that moral dictate come from? who are you to judge his aberrant sexual orientation and hobbies? Aren't you kind of closed- minded?

Morality is not dependent upon the existence of a supreme being. Morality evolved over the centuries as a pragmatic tool to ensure peaceful co-existence within social structures which were evolving at the same time. They are the product of observation. Successful ethical systems kept those values which helped maintain a peacful, productive, stable societies, while discarding those which failed to do so. They draw from the wisdom of the past rather than its worst excesses.

For our ethical systems to be just and humane, the morals and values which they give rise to must be firmly rooted in their consequences to this human life, in this world. This objective standard for morals and values provides the individuals who make up a society a clear idea of what is expected of them, and what they can expect from society in turn.

Deontological ethics, on the other hand, are wholly subjective in nature as they rely upon the interpretation of "divine will" by a few individuals who somehow have a direct pipeline to some metaphysical entity beyond human perception or knowledge. Which shows the inherent contradiction of deontological ethics. If this divine being is not available to human experience, thus human knowledge, how can ANYONE claim to interpret the will of such a being? There has never been a satisfactory answer to this, and its wholly subjective nature is readily apparent in the multitude of religions we see scattered across the globe.

 

[MissileMan]

4. Therefore, God will eventually (at some point in the future) stop all evil from occurring/existing. In the Bible, God's return, mankind's judgment, the establishment of God's kingdom, etc. are all highlighted as the end state of creation. Jesus promised to return to earth in the Gospels, Paul wrote to various Christian communities about Christ's return, and of course, John's Revelation provides a vision of the last days.

So the existence of evil is not an issue, because we see that God is both willing to destroy evil and able to destroy evil. Yet, He is holding off, for an undisclosed period of time. Why? 2 Peter 3:9 says, "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." So God wants humans to repent and receive salvation, and therefore He is waiting to destroy evil (in the form of sin, Satan, and death).

I've seen it argued many times here that God knows the future...this makes sense if you believe that God is omniscient. If this is true, then He already knows who "makes the grade" and who doesn't, right? Why the need to wait if He already knows?

 

[Bullypulpit]

The presence of evil does not preclude the existence of God.

Took the test you have linked in your tagline...Economic Left/Right: -5.0, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.21. I'm in good company...The Dalai Lama is about the same, according to the site.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I've seen it argued many times here that God knows the future...this makes sense if you believe that God is omniscient. If this is true, then He already knows who "makes the grade" and who doesn't, right? Why the need to wait if He already knows?

Thus the nihilistic thought and behavior you see in some religious sects, as in those who believe in end time prophecies and other such apocalyptic creeds.

 

[Matrixx8]

First is the kind of evil perpetrated by man. This goes back to the idea of free will. Just as the existence of light begets the possibility of shadow, thus the existence of love must beget the possibility of hate.

It's a nice metaphor but it still rests on the assumption that what you call "God" actually exists. Ocom's Razor states that "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything."

Wrongdoing (what you call "evil") could have many causes. One is revenge; another is passion; still another is power over others. The question of whether and to what extent humans possess free will is part of a scientific debate, based on conclusions from mapping out the human genome. High seratonin levels also show that human biochemistry can cause or affect aggressive behavior.

The second part of the equation is the suffering inflicted by nature. A good analogy is a story known as the hunter and the bear. God knows far more above what we know than what a hunter would know above a bear. What you describe is probably what would really happen in the wild. That does not seem to jive with the Biblical story of Daniel in the lion's den, as I recall, where the lion somehow recognizes Daniel as the person who pulled the thorn from his paw.

But you're right, it's a good analogy if one assumes that there is a supreme being on another level of consciousness. The problem remains, however, if humans have no evidence of the existence of a supreme being, they cannot by definition know if or what such a being "knows" or "thinks". They can only guess, intelligently, as you are doing.

The existence of evil does not disprove God.

One cannot logically disprove a negative. We cannot disprove that Santa Claus exists or, for that matter, we cannot disprove the existence of your namesake, Tolkien's Hobbits.

In fact, the idea that we label it as evil proves a divine standard by which good and evil are judged.

This does not follow from your preceding statement. There are other measures of right and wrong than the ones you ascribe.

 

[Matrixx8]

Deontological ethics, on the other hand, are wholly subjective in nature as they rely upon the interpretation of "divine will" by a few individuals who somehow have a direct pipeline to some metaphysical entity beyond human perception or knowledge. Which shows the inherent contradiction of deontological ethics. If this divine being is not available to human experience, thus human knowledge, how can ANYONE claim to interpret the will of such a being? There has never been a satisfactory answer to this, and its wholly subjective nature is readily apparent in the multitude of religions we see scattered across the globe.

This is a key point in this discussion. One cannot say with certainty that "God exists". If that is true, then it seems absurd to organize ethical systems and religions based on such a lack of certainty.

This was the position of the deists of the 18th century.

 

[Bullypulpit]

This is a key point in this discussion. One cannot say with certainty that "God exists". If that is true, then it seems absurd to organize ethical systems and religions based on such a lack of certainty.

This was the position of the deists of the 18th century.

Even more fundamental is the concept of certainty. Empirical data gives us a reasonably high degree of certainty about many things, but can we ever have absolute certainty?

It is this quest for absolute certainty that leads us into the metaphysical realms of divine beings possessed of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence. Such a being is possessed of absolutely all knowledge of all things. Thus any who speak in its stead are assumed to then be equally posssessed of this absolute font of knowledge and infallibility. This assumption, however, fails to take into account the nature of human perception and conception, which militates against such absolutism.

 

[dilloduck]

Even more fundamental is the concept of certainty. Empirical data gives us a reasonably high degree of certainty about many things, but can we ever have absolute certainty?

It is this quest for absolute certainty that leads us into the metaphysical realms of divine beings possessed of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence. Such a being is possessed of absolutely all knowledge of all things. Thus any who speak in its stead are assumed to then be equally posssessed of this absolute font of knowledge and infallibility. This assumption, however, fails to take into account the nature of human perception and conception, which militates against such absolutism.

Thus any who speak in its stead are assumed to then be equally posssessed of this absolute font of knowledge and infallibility.

Some people don't understand that some people who "speak in its' stead" are merely offering thier opinion as they sense the deity to be and get tired of having to preface everything they say with 'IMHO'. They are not speaking in it's stead. They are sharing thier own POV.

 

[Hobbit]

It's a nice metaphor but it still rests on the assumption that what you call "God" actually exists. Ocom's Razor states that "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything."

Wrongdoing (what you call "evil") could have many causes. One is revenge; another is passion; still another is power over others. The question of whether and to what extent humans possess free will is part of a scientific debate, based on conclusions from mapping out the human genome. High seratonin levels also show that human biochemistry can cause or affect aggressive behavior.


But you're right, it's a good analogy if one assumes that there is a supreme being on another level of consciousness. The problem remains, however, if humans have no evidence of the existence of a supreme being, they cannot by definition know if or what such a being "knows" or "thinks". They can only guess, intelligently, as you are doing.


One cannot logically disprove a negative. We cannot disprove that Santa Claus exists or, for that matter, we cannot disprove the existence of your namesake, Tolkien's Hobbits.


This does not follow from your preceding statement. There are other measures of right and wrong than the ones you ascribe.

The point of the post was not to prove God. If God could be proven, then the point of faith would be moot. It doesn't take faith to believe in gravity. It does take faith to believe in God. The point of the post was to show that the presence of evil and suffering is not a strike against the case for God's existence.

As for the Occam's Razor quote, God often simplifies things more than complicates, which is the full point of the rule. In order for God not to have existed, the events leading to the emergence of man would have to have been an astronomically long string of outrageous coincidences, starting with the fact that Earth is just barely inside the window for life to be sustainable. You may believe that God most likely doesn't exist, so you conclude that those coincidences must have happened. I, on the other hand, believe that the odds of those coincidences are so bad as to be practically impossible, making God the simpler answer. How Occam's Razor is applied to the idea of Darwinism versus ID depends on perspective.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Some people don't understand that some people who "speak in its' stead" are merely offering thier opinion as they sense the deity to be and get tired of having to preface everything they say with 'IMHO'. They are not speaking in it's stead. They are sharing thier own POV.

Nicely put. Too many though, fail to make it known that they are only offering up an opinion rather that some utter and absolute truth. Whether they do so deliberately or throught ignorance, the result is the same..., Devisiveness, conflict, violence and suffering. All in the name of their favorite deity.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Morality is not dependent upon the existence of a supreme being. Morality evolved over the centuries as a pragmatic tool to ensure peaceful co-existence within social structures which were evolving at the same time. They are the product of observation. Successful ethical systems kept those values which helped maintain a peacful, productive, stable societies, while discarding those which failed to do so. They draw from the wisdom of the past rather than its worst excesses.

For our ethical systems to be just and humane, the morals and values which they give rise to must be firmly rooted in their consequences to this human life, in this world. This objective standard for morals and values provides the individuals who make up a society a clear idea of what is expected of them, and what they can expect from society in turn.

Deontological ethics, on the other hand, are wholly subjective in nature as they rely upon the interpretation of "divine will" by a few individuals who somehow have a direct pipeline to some metaphysical entity beyond human perception or knowledge. Which shows the inherent contradiction of deontological ethics. If this divine being is not available to human experience, thus human knowledge, how can ANYONE claim to interpret the will of such a being? There has never been a satisfactory answer to this, and its wholly subjective nature is readily apparent in the multitude of religions we see scattered across the globe.

The funny thing is, those who deny religion typically cannot come up with a satisfactory replacement moral system, besides some form of utopian totalitarianism. Yes, moral codes have an impact on the here and now. I agree. Most who deride traditional religion, though, are doing so say they can justify various forms of power grabbing and eugenics, ie, totalitarian communism, baby killing, and mad scientist research on humans.

 

[Bullypulpit]

The funny thing is, those who deny religion typically cannot come up with a satisfactory replacement moral system, besides some form of utopian totalitarianism. Yes, moral codes have an impact on the here and now. I agree. Most who deride traditional religion, though, are doing so say they can justify various forms of power grabbing and eugenics, ie, totalitarian communism, baby killing, and mad scientist research on humans.

If you'd read the post more carefully, you would see that I provided a bare-bones, very minimal outline of an ethical system with the consequences to this human life, in this world as the yard-stick by which its efficacy is measured. I can provide a more detailed post if you wish. It does not rely upon totalitarian or utopian ideals. Totalitarians and utopians would find such an ethical system repugnant, as would authoritarians and religious absolutists. It is not a form of moral relativism. And I say again, most emphatically, morality is not dependent upon religion.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If you'd read the post more carefully, you would see that I provided a bare-bones, very minimal outline of an ethical system with the consequences to this human life, in this world as the yard-stick by which its efficacy is measured. I can provide a more detailed post if you wish. It does not rely upon totalitarian or utopian ideals. Totalitarians and utopians would find such an ethical system repugnant, as would authoritarians and religious absolutists. It is not a form of moral relativism. And I say again, most emphatically, morality is not dependent upon religion.

Correct, morality is not dependant on religion, but it just so happens that those who attack religions, do so to change the moral system of society, not because they just want the truth.

I didn't see you proposing a new moral system. Where?

In your proposed moral system, is ok to kill babies?

 

[5stringJeff]

I've seen it argued many times here that God knows the future...this makes sense if you believe that God is omniscient. If this is true, then He already knows who "makes the grade" and who doesn't, right? Why the need to wait if He already knows?

Because people still have to make the free will choice to believe. God knows the future only because God is outside of time. For example, there could be millions of people who will become Christians in teh 21st century who aren't even born yet, yet God knows they will accept Him. Thus, he is waiting for them to be born and accept.